European Research Studies Journal

Volume XXIII, Issue 1, 2020

pp. 198-214

A Simplified Activity-Based Costing Approach for SMEs:

The Case Study of an Italian Small Road Company
Submitted 13/10/19, 1st revision 25/11/19, 2nd revision 12/12/19, accepted 25/01/20

Domenico Raucci1 , Dominique Lepore23

Abstract:

Purpose: The paper proposes an original conceptual model for designing a simplified
Activity-Based Costing (ABC) approach for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) by
focusing on the transport sector.
Design/Methodology/Approach: The model is designed starting from the distinctive
characteristics of the SMEs’ collaborative culture. The approach is then tested in the case of
an Italian small-road company.
Findings: The simplified ABC, which was gradually introduced in the SME, allowed the firm
to gain confidence with the costing system. Moreover, the discussion of the results led to
identifying the main areas to improve.
Practical Implications: Costing systems based on collaboration can lead to operational
improvements in SMEs operating in dynamic and competitive sectors as transport.
Moreover, advanced technologies may hold a crucial role for their development.
Originality/Value: Not much research has considered collaboration as a driver for
introducing ABC in SMEs. The paper contributes to the literature on simplified managerial
approaches, suggesting trends for future research.

Keywords: Activity-based costing, collaboration, SMEs, transportation.

JEL Codes: M41, L25, L91.

Paper type : Research article.

1
Economic Studies, University of G. d’Annunzio, Chieti - Pescara, Italy,
e-mail: d.raucci@unich.it (corresponding Author);
2
Political Sciences, Communication and International Relations, University of Macerata, Via
Don Minzoni, Italy, e-mail: d.lepore@studenti.unimc.it
3
Although the article is the result of a collaborative work among authors, the authorship is
the following: paragraphs 2, 2.1; 4; 4.1; 4.2 to Domenico Raucci and paragraphs 3; 5.1; 5.2
to Dominique Lepore. Paragraphs 1 and 6 were jointly written.
 D. Raucci, D. Lepore

199

1. Introduction

Companies in the transport sector struggle to determine their logistics costs, often
hidden in overheads, putting at stake their visibility and control (Pohlen and La
Londe, 1994). However, the European transport sector is called to provide the best
products and services, in time and cost-efficiency. The role of Small and Medium-
sized Enterprises (SMEs) in meeting these challenges is critical being key players in
supply chains (EC, 2017). The adoption of advanced costing systems, as Activity
Based Costing (ABC), can help to identify the real costs of operations and services
(Baykasog and Kaplanog, 2008). Moreover, since in a transport company the cost
structure is multidimensional, ABC offers a more analytical and accurate perspective
(Kock and Weber, 2008).

However, the complexity behind ABC has caused its low adoption, especially
among SMEs (Needy et al., 2003) constrained in financial and human capital
(Hicks, 1999). Even if, as underlined by Loth (2012), managerial accounting
systems, as ABC, can be equally beneficial for SMEs as for large corporations when
the benefits do not outweigh the associated costs. Nevertheless, SMEs’ distinctive
futures and differences in respect to large firms, make the adoption of the “classical”
version of ABC an excessive “organizational effort” risking not considering the
benefits that can be achieved (Machado, 2012). Therefore, it is necessary to find
methodologies able to select data to implement such costing systems, balancing the
simplicity required while adjusting to the features of SMEs (Kocakulah et al., 2017).

Not much research focusing on simplified versions of ABC has considered

exploiting dimensions linked to a collaborative culture. The paper aims to cover this
gap suggesting new trends for future research. As recognized by Askarany et al.
(2010), smaller firms need more attention than large firms, regardless of the
industry, in ABC adoption and cost and information analysis for SMEs cannot be
ignored (Grima et al., 2019). The research proposes a model for a simplified ABC
approach in an Italian Small Road company combining in an innovative way the
framework of Bharara and Lee (1996) and the model of Roztocki et al. (2004) to
gradually introduce the costing system, making the SME aware of the achievable
benefits while exploiting the informal conditions of its collaborative culture. The
paper is structured as follows. Firstly, ABC is described considering its
implementation in SMEs with a focus on the transport sector. After explaining the
methodology, the case study is illustrated discussing the main results. Finally,
conclusions and further research suggestions are drawn.

2. Literature Review

Activity-Based Costing (ABC) was introduced at the end of the 1980s as a source of
more reliable cost information for products, customers, services and processes
overcoming the limits of traditional systems (Berliner and Brimson, 1988). ABC by
being centred on activities and on their absorption from different cost objects,
 A Simplified Activity-Based Costing Approach for SMEs:
The Case Study of an Italian Small Road Company
200

allowed to highlight the risky cross-subsidy phenomenon caused by traditional full

costing. The identification of resource and activity drivers, as the way in which
activities are linked through the firm’s processes according to value generation,
determines where to conduct profitable actions (Cokins, 2001). ABC has interested
different sectors, as the finance (Vieira and Hoskin, 2005), health (Cinquini et al.,
2009) and hospitality (Raab and Maye, 2009). ABC adoption has considered also the
logistic and transport sector (Themido et al., 2000) where it becomes essential to
know the real cost drivers of services and the cost of activities contributing to
production to assess profitability and operation efficiency (Hofmann and Bosshars,
2017). In transport services, ABC approaches are investigated both in private sector
from road (Baykasog and Kaplanog, 2008) and forests transport (Nurminen et al.,
2009) to public mass transport (Popesko et al., 2016) in rail transportation
(Watanapa et al., 2016) and airline industry (Koch and Weber, 2008).

Since the costs structure of a transport company is multidimensional, ABC provides

a more analytical perspective (Popesko and Novák, 2011), considering factors, as
kind of transport means, locations, and conditions, whose detailed analysis leads to
be more strategic for the competitiveness of the sector (Kock and Weber, 2008).
Besides these advantages, studies highlighted how compared to manufacturing and
other service sectors, the adoption of ABC in transport companies is characterized
by greater complexity in measuring outputs, defining activities and specific cost
drivers. Activities may be less predictable respect to the services requested and joint
capacity represents a high portion of total costs, thus it becomes difficult to link
these to activities (Rotch, 1990). The complexity of business processes can increase
the load of ABC calculations (Baykasog and Kaplanog, 2006). Consequently, for
transport companies, it is difficult determining logistics costs since these are often
enclosed in the “hidden factory” (Miller and Volman, 1985) and in transactions
causing overhead expenses. This means that managers do not have adequate
visibility and control over indirect costs (Pohlen and La Londe, 1994).

In addition to these difficulties, it is necessary to add variables that may challenge

ABC implementation related to contextual factors, such as strategy, organizational
structure, competition, environmental uncertainty and product diversity (Gosselin,
1997; Al-Omiri, 2011). Among these, company size becomes relevant for ABC
adoption (Ahmadzadeh et al., 2011), which is more expensive and labor-consuming
to implement and maintain, respect to traditional systems, in an operational context
which is “less complex” as that of SMEs. Moreover, in SMEs, training and software
requirements may even prohibit its adoption (Özyürek and Yılmaz, 2016) and
managers could be let down by time and effort to develop ABC (Needy et al., 2003).
SMEs’ operative aspects represent a barrier for ABC diffusion in their management
control processes, perceived excessive in a cost-benefit analysis (Cooper and
Kaplan, 1998). However, SMEs face a modern global context in a hypercompetitive
environment where process innovation management and the evaluation of its
efficiency and time are key competitive advantages (Havlíček et al., 2013),
especially in dealing with the introduction of the new technologies in the transport
 D. Raucci, D. Lepore

201

sector (Harris et al., 2015). SMEs struggle with the same managerial difficulties as
large enterprises and need to straighten their organizational capacity in dealing with
turbulent environments (Taekyung and Dongwoo, 2015). Thus, their management
accounting and costing systems are crucial in supporting decision-making and
business functions (Ahmad, 2017).

SMEs need access to the same informative advantages offered by ABC, especially,
those operating in the transport sector dealing with a dynamic competitive context at
the same extend as big companies (EPRS, 2016). These requirements come from a
sector that in Europe is characterized by large enterprises involved in postal services,
air, and rail transport with a relevant number of small players (Eurostat, 2017).
These considerations cannot be overlooked by the costing literature. We believe that
ABC can offer solutions that, starting from a greater understanding of the limits of
adopting advanced system, can help overcome them through a “simplified” and
gradual approach tailored for a less complex context.

2.1 Suggesting a Gradual and Simplified ABC Model for SMEs

Small and medium-sized companies are often restrained in their ability to exercise
managerial accounting because they lack the necessary resources. Managerial
accounting can be beneficial to these firms as it is for large corporations when the
benefits of managerial accounting do not outweigh the associated costs (Lohr, 2012).
Nevertheless, ABC literature has mainly focused on large firms, both in transport
sector than in others (Gosselin, 2007; Schoute, 2004), while studies in SMEs
resulted slower (Foroughi et al., 2017). These studies outlined ABC benefits in
SMEs proving the usefulness of the system as advantages for profitability and
growth (Rìos-Marinquez et al., 2014). Even in businesses producing low volumes of
products/services the risk of distortions in the true product/services costs, generated
by traditional costing systems occurs. ABC can provide accurate measures of
activity costs whose intensity is not proportional to the volume of output produced
(Kaplan and Cooper, 1992). In SMEs, ABC can become a valuable management
control tool with a positive impact on organizational performance (Needy et al.,
2003).

Therefore, the implementation of ABC requires more attention in the context of

smaller firms (Askarany et al., 2010). ABC was designed to facilitate accurate cost
information regarding production, support activities, specific cost objects, with
approaches adaptable to businesses (Kaplan and Cooper, 1992) driving operative
improvements (Stevenson et al., 1996). The availability of analytical information
can support SMEs in managing relationships between costs, customer value,
revenues, profitability and their drivers, enhancing client satisfaction (Kocakulah,
2007). Understanding cost behaviour, SMEs managers can improve decision-making
handling the complexities of a globalized context (Foroughi et al., 2017). ABC
studies for SMEs highlighted the risks of barriers to its implementation. In these
organizations with less than 50 or less than 250 employees, presented as “small” or
 A Simplified Activity-Based Costing Approach for SMEs:
The Case Study of an Italian Small Road Company
202

“medium” (UE Recommendation, 361/2003), the low diffusion of advanced costing

systems was explained by lower operative and structural complexity, financial and
human capital constraints, scarce presence of accounting information which can
result inaccurate, and by simple management control approaches (Hicks, 1999;
Kocakulah et al., 2017). SMEs are based on governance systems where the owner
tends to centralize power, with a lack of a clear definition of tasks and
responsibilities among employees with a high degree of informality (Barretta, 1999;
Sandelin, 2008). These firms usually adopt control processes, rather than formal
ones preferring the wider social dimension of personnel and cultural controls, like
clan (Maciariello and Kirby, 1994).

The lack of perceived need in adopting advanced costing systems, as ABC, has led
to cases of “cultural gap” in SME managers and resistance phenomena in
understanding the benefits of using a costing approach as ABC (Rìos-Manriques et
al., 2014). SMEs’ distinctive futures and low complexity make the adoption of the
“classical” version of ABC an excessive “organizational effort” risking not
considering the benefits that can be achieved (Machado, 2012). Thus, it is necessary
to find cost allocation systems balancing the cost of errors and measurement with
the levels of simplicity required adjusting to the features of SMEs (Needy et al.,
2003).

Some ABC models for SMEs have been proposed based on a smooth
implementation to overcome resistance, even cultural (Stapleton et al., 2004).
Studies suggested “simplifications” of ABC since in an environment where there
usually is a low product diversity or a unique production schedule, different cost
measurement needs emerge (Vercio and Shoemaker, 2007). Others, based on IT
potentialities which become economically accessible for SMEs suggest a low-
weight ABC (Attewell, 1992), connecting processes, cost tables and cost estimates
using effectiveness systems of “expense-activity-dependence” matrix (Roztocki et
al., 2004) or multiple-non-commercial tools (Finke and Bušinska, 2011). Studies
showed how a deeper understanding of organizational behavioral dimensions in
SMEs could represent a driver to favour simplified ABC approaches (Gunasekaran
et al., 1999).

Bharara and Lee (1996) propose a model where, instead of simplifying the structure
of ABC, it simplifies its introduction focusing on a collaborative approach by
interviewing employees in their daily tasks, organizational structure, and operations.
Based on high information sharing and using cost data, it is possible to overcome
cases or reluctance in devoting time to track activities performed. This involvement,
applicable to SMEs, for a lower number of employees and small-medium scale of
operations, allows implementing and maintaining a similar ABC approach in an
inexpensive way. Moving from these advantages based on behavioural dimensions
as Bharara and Lee (1996), we propose and apply a conceptual model for a
“simplified” ABC implementation for SMEs exploiting some of the distinctive
futures existing in these small contexts.
 D. Raucci, D. Lepore

203

2.2 A Collaborative Culture to Unlock ABC Potential for SMEs

In suggesting a simplified ABC model for SMEs, we refer to aspects of

organisational culture, as trust and strong employee relationships, informal control
processes and simple internal communications, lack of bureaucracy within the
working environment. These dimensions, identifying a collaborative culture, have
been considered as specific SMEs characteristics, that can facilitate ABC
implementation (Gunasekaran et al., 1999; Kocakulah et al., 2017). Literature
defines culture as a set of values, beliefs and assumptions shared by members of the
same organization, influenced by their activities and observable in their behaviours
(Schein, 1991). Organizational culture includes the firm’s ability to acquiring and
sharing the existing knowledge work, whose effectiveness varies among
organisations and measurement systems (Ragab and Arisha, 2013).

Employees’ knowledge and expertise of working tasks that make efficient and
effective the design and the execution of each activity even in the ABC approach are
not an isolated object since these aspects are embedded in people. Even if a careful
design of ABC can enhance the effectiveness in the costing system, it becomes
unsuccessful if there is a lack of willingness in sharing information among
organisational members. Studies in the knowledge work framework argued that a
culture of trust and collaboration improves knowledge sharing and organisational
effectiveness (Sveiby and Simons, 2002). However, since these cultural aspects are
SMEs’ characteristics, we believe that these would facilitate ABC implementation.
The real issue becomes that of measuring collaboration in SMEs. With this aim, in
our ABC approach, assuming a contingency perspective, we consider it as an
antecedent variable influencing the willingness of employees to share their
knowledge on their working tasks from the definition of the activities. We took as a
reference Sveiby and Simons (2002) considering the influence that a “collaborative
climate” has on knowledge sharing.

Therefore, in a specific business context higher the level of collaborative, higher is

the contribution of shared knowledge offered to organizational members and thus,
the support for an effective ABC implementation. We view collaboration as a driver
of success in designing a “simplified” ABC to compensate for the technical and
procedural simplifications useful to SMEs, with a suitable level of accuracy in line
with their informational flexibility. Meiryani (2014) shows that the involvement of
users in costing system development is a factor that influences the success of its
implementation and should be encouraged in ABC approaches (Raucci and Lepore,
2015; Hooze and Ngo, 2017). When collecting data to design costing systems,
SMEs can benefit from open communication coming from a collaborative climate
and not formalized processes of tmanagement control (Pusic et al., 1998). To
overcome the limits of the “classical” ABC in SMEs, our conceptual model is based
on the second step of technical integration, which starts from the model of Roztocki
et al. (2004). This model with “simplified” matrixes “Expense-Activity-
Dependence” (EAD) and “Activity-Product-Dependence” (APD) includes
 A Simplified Activity-Based Costing Approach for SMEs:
The Case Study of an Italian Small Road Company
204

estimations based on an educated guess or systematic appraisal (via an analytic

hierarchical process) collecting data in a short time and low cost to allocate overhead
cost to products, reaching the accuracy desired. Based on the fruitful integration of
the collaborative climate and of the smooth procedure, we present an application of
our conceptual model for a gradual and “simplified” implementation of ABC in
SMEs. We apply such a model in the transport sector, where factors, such as
congestion, decarbonization and digital transition, are expected to increase demand
for transport in the EU especially for SMEs who will play an ever-increasing role in
meeting this demand (EPRS, 2016).

The European transport sector must have the capacity to deliver the best products
and services, in a timely and cost-effective manner. The role of SMEs in meeting
these challenges is critical in the role of key players in supply chains (EC, 2017).
Nevertheless, SMEs still use traditional methods ignoring advanced ones, as ABC
(Ahmand, 2017). Transport companies, mainly SMEs, are rarely focused on cost
calculation even if improved costing models can be valuable for their
competitiveness. Advanced systems can allow considering operational
characteristics of different transport services, improving decision-making and
profitability. To overcome this gap, the case study presents the application of ABC
in a small road company located in Italy, where SMEs represent 99.9% of firms and
the road transport is a leading sector among the first six EU countries with Germany,
Spain, Poland, UK, and France (ANFIA 2017).

3. Methodology

The research is based on a case study following Yin (2013). ABC design and
implementation in the Small Road company took place from September 2017 till
April 2018. The model was designed involving managers and employees. Firstly, we
captured insights into the collaborative climate existing in the SME with interviews
and direct observation. We considered the scale of Sveiby and Simons (2002) for
interviewing managers and employees on dimensions that identify a “collaborative
climate”, referring to organizational culture, immediate supervisor, employee
attitude and workgroup support. These dimensions identify the SMEs’
characteristics that can facilitate ABC implementation (Kocakulah et al., 2017). An
interview of 30 minutes was set with the two managers asking their expectations
behind the adoption of an ABC system in line with Bharara and Lee (1996). Further
face-to-face interviews of 15 minutes were set with the administrative and
maintenance unit. Instead, 15 minutes telephone interviews were carried out from a
sample of 30 of the drivers, identified by the managers and administrative office.

After, a first meeting was set involving managers and administrative employees to
identify direct and indirect costs. Starting from macro activities, the specific ones
have been recognised with their activity cost driver, and three key routes were
selected, while a residual one set as “other routes” (n.4). Once that the cost objects
were defined, a new meeting was scheduled involving employees from the
 D. Raucci, D. Lepore

205

maintenance unit and drivers of those routes to explain the need for ABC and in
involving them in its design. Contrarily from “classical” ABC, the “Expense-
Activity-Dependence” (EAD) as suggested by Roztockichi et al. (2004) was
designed applying the educated guess technique, already suggested when data is not
available (Themido et al. 2000) while noticing the collaborative context during the
sessions. Next, indirect costs were allocated to the routes through activity-cost
drivers and then based on the revenues of the routes, the profits were calculated.

3.1 The Case Study

The Small Road company selected is in the centre of Italy and offers transport
services for both national and international companies. Its activities involve
transport, national and international shipping, storage of goods and all related
logistics activities. Currently, the company has 80 road tractors, 50 trucks, 80
trailers, and 150 semi-trailers. The company with two company managers is
organized around three main departments: (1) Administrative office with 15
employees involved in accounting and administrative activities; (2) Transportation
with 110 drivers; (3) Maintenance unit with 10 mechanics and 5 lift-truck operators.

3.2 Designing ABC in the SME Road Company

The development of the simplified model was based on data from the balance sheet
complemented with meetings with the two managers, employees for the
administrative and maintenance area and selected drivers. Firstly, the routes of
interest were identified selecting three main ones for the analysis, whereas a fourth
one was set to collect costs of all the other residual ones indicated as “other routes”,
indicated as Route 4. The first three routes are the principal ones offered to clients
with the most homogeneous costs. The “other routes” includes minor routes of a
different kind, not continuously offered and in most cases on-demand:

Route 1: SULMONA – COMO / MILANO – SULMONA; 300 times per year

(beverage transport);
Route 2: ORICOLA - NOGARA (VR) / NOGARA – ORICOLA; 200 times per year
(beverage transport);
Route 3: CORFINIO – VERONA (transport of drywall / VERONA - ROMA (milk
transport); trip 180 times per year.

Based on accounting data, direct and indirect costs were identified (Table 1).
 A Simplified Activity-Based Costing Approach for SMEs:
The Case Study of an Italian Small Road Company
206

Table 1. Direct and Indirect costs (€)

Direct costs 1 2 3 4 Total

Gross wages 106.463,00 64.452,32 58.489,02 3.027.044,66 3.256.449,00
Tools 71.190,00 36.760,00 39.636,00 1.031.295,93 1.178.881,93
Fuel 163.800,00 82.340,00 75.240,00 3.772.576,86 4.093.956,86
Total 341.453,00 183.552,32 173.365,02 7.830.917,45 8.529.287,79
Indirect costs
Insurance 409.749,87
Depreciation 206.417,00
Revision vehicles 34.657,44
Lubricants 70.971,38
Maintenance 942.755,86
Damages Expenses 68.504,94
Stationery and software 18.889,29
Telephone and operator 42.862,77
Total 1.794.808,55

The team mapped the “macro” activities as shipment preparation, loading operation,
transport, unloading operation and invoicing recognizing the specific ones with their
activity cost driver. Then the matrix EAD was designed relating activities and costs,
including checkmarks for the costs involved in the activity of the column. These
marks were then substituted with a percentage representing the amount of resources
used by the activity, through an educated guess. To translate the coefficient in
monetary terms, the formula employed by Roztcki et al. (2014) was used (Table 2).
The coefficient formula is given in equation (1):

(1)

Table 2. Matrix EAD (€/1.000)

Maintaince

complaints

Stationary
Lubricant
Insurance

Revision

software

operator
Deprec.
Indirect

Wages

Total
Phone
Gross
Costs

Orders received 0,135 0,07 1,29 1,495

Elaboration order 0,135 0,11 0,21 0,455
Shipment order 0,081 16,39 0,35 9,43 0,13 1,29 27,67
Recording goods 0,054 0,06 0,21 0,324
 D. Raucci, D. Lepore

207

Planning transport 0,135 24,58 0,35 9,43 0,47 0,43 35,39

Loading 0,135 5,16 0,69 1,06 18,85 0,68 26,57

Transport 1,62 10,32 1,38 4,97 37,71 2,74 58,74
Uploading 0,135 5,16 0,69 1,06 18,85 0,68 26,57
Complains and 0,054 2,74 0,28 0,43 3,50
returns
Duties 0,081 0,38 0,21 0,67
Payment invoices 0,135 0,38 0,21 0,72

After determining the activity drivers (Table 3), the total indirect activity-based costs
per route (Table 4) and the unitary profits were calculated (Table 5) .

Table 3. Activiy drivers

Activity
Activity Ruote 1 Ruote 2 Ruote 3 Ruote 4 Total AD
Driver (AD)
Orders N.contact
350 220 200 12100 12.870
received by client
Elaboration Length 0,33h*300 0,33h*200 0,33h*180 0,33h*12060
4.204,2
order transaction =99 =66 =59,4 =3979,8
Shipment
N.shipments 300 200 180 12060 12.740
order
Recording
N.documents 400 300 280 12150 13.130
goods
Planning N.working
300 200 180 12060 12.740
transport orders
Hours 4,16h*300 4,16h*200 5,5h*180 4,83h*12060
Loading 61.319,8
loading =1248 =832 =990 =58249,8
Transport Distance 393.600 208.800 191.520 12.060.000 12.853.920
Hours 4,66h*300 3,66h*200 4,99h*180 4,44h*12060
Uploading 56.574,6
uploading =1398 =732 =898,2 =53546,4
Complains
N.complaints 15 10 13 60 98
and returns
N.duties
Duties 300 200 180 12060 12.740
received
Payment
N.payments 12 12 12 600 636
invoices
 A Simplified Activity-Based Costing Approach for SMEs:
The Case Study of an Italian Small Road Company
208

Table 4. Allocation indirect costs (€)

Indirec Total Unitar Total
Activity t Costs y costs Ruote 1 Ruote 2 Ruote 3 Ruote 4
(€) AD AD Costs

Orders
14.950 12.870 1,16 406,00 255,20 232,00 14.036,00 14.929,2
received
Elaboratio
4.550 4.204,2 1,08 106,92 71,28 64,15 4.298,18 4.540,53
n order
Shipment
276.700 12.740 21,72 6.516,00 4.344,00 3.909,60 261.943,20 276.712,8
order
Recording
3.240 13.130 0,25 100,00 75,00 70,00 3.037,50 3.282,5
goods
Planning
353.900 12.740 27,78 8.334,00 5.556,00 5.000,40 335.026,80 353.917,2
transport
Loading 265.700 61.319,8 4,33 5.403,84 3.602,56 4.286,70 252.221,63 265.514,73

12.853.92 19.680,0 10.440,0

Transport 587.400 0,05 9.576,00 603.000,00 642.696
0 0 0
Uploading 265.700 56.574,6 4,70 6.570,60 3.440,40 4.221,50 251.668,08 265.900,58
Complains
35.000 98 357,14 5.357,10 3.571,40 4.642,82 21.428,40 34.999,72
and returns
Duties 6.700 12.740 0,52 156,00 104,00 93,60 6.271,20 6.624,8
Payment
7.200 636 11,32 135,84 135,84 135,84 6.792,00 7.199,52
invoices
31.595,6 32.232,6 1.759.722,9 1.876.317,5
Total 52.766,3
8 1 9 8

Table 5. Profits per routes (€)

Revenues Total costs Costs Profits

N.trips
Routes (directs and indirects
(unitary) (in the year) (unitary) (unitary)
actiivity-based)
1 1.693,00 394.219,30 300 1.314,06 378,94
2 1.230,00 215.148,00 200 1.075,74 154,26
3 1.210,00 205.597,63 180 1.142,21 67,79

4. Discussion

4.1 Exploring the Collaborative Culture of the SME

To gain a preliminary picture of the collaborative culture, an interview was

scheduled with the managers. When asked to describe their relationship with
employees, both agreed to try to involve most of them in decision-making processes,
asking for suggestions, especially when issues occur. This statement related mainly
to employees in the administrative area, maintenance unit and drivers of the leading
company routes. Both recognized that improvements could be made organizing
more regular meetings. Then, after explaining the ABC functions, the managers
 D. Raucci, D. Lepore

209

confirmed to be willing to adopt it to achieve data to improve the activities of the

company and facilitate the control over costs. On the other hand, the administrative
employees underlined their involvement in decision making and felt to contribute to
the definition of the company’s policies. They stated to collaborate with most
drivers, especially those of the leading routes and with the unit of maintenance.

To the same extent, employees from the maintenance unit asserted that the two
managers ask information and suggestions on how to improve the company’s
performance organizing meetings to which selected drivers participate together with
the administrative area. Instead, drivers from the leading routes, expressed that they
felt distant from decision-making processes in the company and some stated not to
meet so often the two managers. Even if, they participated in occasional meetings to
provide information about the routes when problems and changes occurred.
Whereas, they stated to be in touch with employees of the maintenance units,
administrative area and drivers of the same route. Drivers on-demand revealed to
feel even more unaware of the company’s decision-making processes, while closely
in touch with selected drivers operating in their same routes.

4.2 Information Potential for SME in the Transport Sector

The initial attempt to design the simplified ABC approach has provided insights for
the small road company enhancing its interests towards the costing system. The
company did not use any costing system before and did not consider the possibility
of implementing an advanced costing system. The climate of the SMEs resulted
collaborative with exceptions from drivers based on their route. Knowledge sharing
among employees was confirmed during the model design. Different activities were
considered for EAD Matrix, from order received, planning transport to payment
invoices. Appropriate activyt (cost) drivers were selected as presented in Tables (3
and 4). Some concerns were raised by drivers in establishing time drivers for the
length of the transaction and the hours of loading and unloading. The administrative
employees stated that the SME had never considered monitoring these aspects since
they didn’t recognize their direct impact on the cost structure of the company. The
greatest revelation was to find that the leading routes represented just a small portion
(6%) of the total costs. Considering the costs of activities made the company
members aware of which were the costly ones and how they distributed themselves
among the leading routes. The staff was not surprised in discovering that the
profitable route among the three leading ones was n.1 being the most frequent one.
Major concerns were raised on the third route for the large amount of indirect costs
respect to the revenues. Discussion about client management raised suggestions
about defining the length of transaction for the activity of elaborating the order for
the routes, set equally as 0.33 h. Such a result made the company aware of the need
to consider different policies in managing orders from clients, as in the case of new
and old clients.
 A Simplified Activity-Based Costing Approach for SMEs:
The Case Study of an Italian Small Road Company
210

These issues were part of the final discussion when considering the profits gained
from route n.3 respect to the other two leading routes. This was related to the impact
of loading and unloading activities. Drivers on the route n.3 revealed that there were
persistent time management problems with selected customers, starting from the
arrival of drivers, leading to time gaps between load and upload operating. The
discussion made the managers aware of the need toinvolve drivers in decision-
making to gain information on these issues and to define different policies for
customers. An interesting inquiry was raised by an administrative employee
concerning to the way some activity driver was measured. The employee considered
complaints and return, asking for the future to measure the time needed to manage
each complaint. The same employees raised a discussion about using the number of
orders both for the shipment order and planning transport, outlining the possibility of
employing time drivers to have a complete picture of how planning transport is
managed among the routes.

Overall, the informal conditions in the SME confirmed a knowledge sharing culture
that allowed to establish a beneficial discussion in all stages of the design.
Managers, administrative employees, and drivers were involved in the process and
showed a willingness to contribute. From the final meeting, the managers considered
the outcomes useful for understanding the company’s activities and gain information
from the allocation of costs expressing the intention to further exploit the model.
Through ABC, it became possible to understand the origin of costs in terms of
complains and returns, unloading and loading operation. Moreover, considering the
impact of the fourth rote to the cost structure of the company, the managers are
considering breaking down the route 4, categorizing some of the most frequent
routes on-demand respect to the others. Therefore, administrative employees started
to suggest ways to investigate more in deep route n.4 considering some common
characteristics, minimizing the residual part of costs in a new route n.5.

5. Conclusions

The study introduced a conceptual model for a simplified and gradual

implementation of a simplified ABC approach in a SME in the transport sector,
where demand is expected to increase due to digital transition (EPRS, 2016). The
climate was captured through interviews and direct observation, designing the model
with managers and staff. The gradual introduction of the model proved to be
beneficial in raising the attention of the company on the possibility of introducing
advanced costing systems exploiting knowledge sharing among peers and with
superior. By presenting a gradual implementation of the model we agree with
Turney’s (1991) observation according to who it is necessary to demonstrate the
benefits achievable from the use of ABC to be able to generate interest in its
adoption. We further confirm the vision of Beng et al. (1994), stressing the need to
better educate managers and entrepreneurs, so that adoption of the concept will
become more widespread. The SME, after understanding the impact that activities
have on the cost structure, is considering adopting ABC not only to keep control of
 D. Raucci, D. Lepore

211

the cost of its activities but mainly to improve its operative mechanisms, as in
managing different customers.

The model we propose starts from the premise that the collaborative climate is an
antecedent for its successful implementation. Nevertheless, the research has some
limitations. First, more accurate measurement and analysis of a collaborative climate
are required since results are based only on a qualitative approach. Second, the
research is based on a single case, therefore results cannot be generalized. Therefore,
further cases are required to give validity to the overall model also respect to
different sectors and countries. Further aspects to consider are related to the adoption
of new technologies in SMEs and how these can affect sharing knowledge within
the organisation.

References:

Ahmadzadeh, T., Etemadi, H., Pifeh, A. 2011. Exploration of factors influencing on choice
the activity-based costing system in Iranian organizations. International Journal of
Business Administration, 2(1), 61-70.
Ahman, K. 2017. The implementation of management accounting practices and its
relationship with performance in Small and Medium Enterprise. International
Review of Management and Marketing, 7(1), 342-353.
Al-Omiri, M. 2011. A survey study of the organization and behavioural factors influencing
the adoption and success of ABC in KSA companies. Cost Management
(March/April), 29-42.
ANFIA. 2017. Studi e Statistiche: https://www.anfia.it/it/studi-e-statistiche.
Askarany, D., Yazdifar, H., Askary, S. 2010. Supply chain management, activity-based
costing and organisational factors. International Journal of Production Economics,
127(2), 238-248.
Attewell, P. 1992. Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business
computing. Organization Science, 3(1), 1-19.
Barretta, A. 1999. Struttura organizzativa e controllo di gestione nelle PMI italiane. Rivista
dei Dottori Commercialisti, 50(2), 241-264.
Baykasog˘lu, A., Kaplanoglu, V. 2008. Application of activity-based costing to a land
transportation company: A case study. International Journal of Production
Economics, 116(2), 308-324.
Beng, A.K., Schoch, H., Yap, T. 1994. Activity based costing in the electronics industry: The
Singapore experience. Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 11(2), 28-37.
Berliner, C., Brimson, J.A. 1988. Cost management for today’s advanced manufacturing.
The CAM-I conceptual design. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bharara, A., Lee, C.Y. 1996. Implementation of an activity-based costing system in a small
manufacturing company. International Journal of Production Research, 34(4), 1109-
1130.
Cinquini, L., Vitali, P.M., Pitzalis A. and Campanale, C. 2009. Process view and cost
management of a new surgery technique in hospital. Business Process Management
Journal, 15(6), 895-919.
Cokins, G. 2001. Activity-Based Cost Management: An executive guide. John Wiley and
Sons, New York.
 A Simplified Activity-Based Costing Approach for SMEs:
The Case Study of an Italian Small Road Company
212

Cooper, R., Kaplan, R.S. 1992. Activity-Based System: Measuring the Costs of Resource
Usage. Accounting Horizons, 1-13.
Cooper, R., Kaplan, R.S. 1998. Cost and effect. Boston Press, Harvard Business School.
EPRS. 2016. “European Parliamentary Research Service, Marketa Pape Thijs
Vandenbussche, Members' Research Service”, PE 593.533.
European Commission Decision, C.(2017)2468 of 24 April 2017, Horizon 2020, Work
Programme 2016 – 2017, “Innovation in SMEs”, 1-62.
Eurostat. 2017. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/.
Finke, A., Bušinska, L. 2011. Technology for Light-Weight ABC in SME. In Information
Technologies, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Information and
Software Technologies (IT 2011), Lithuania, Kaunas. Technologija, 149-156.
Foroughi, A., Kocakulah, M., Stott, A., Manyoky, L. 2017. Activity-Based Costing: Helping
Small and Medium-Sized Firms Achieve a Competitive Edge in the Global
Marketplace. Research in Economics and Management, 2470-4393.
Gosselin, M. 1997. The effect of strategy and organizational structure on the adoption and
implementation of activity-based costing. Accounting Organization Society, 22(1),
105-122.
Gosselin, M. 2007. A Review of Activity-Based Costing: Technique, Implementation, and
Consequences. In Chapman, C.S., Hopwood A.G., Shields, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook
of Management Accounting Research, New York, Elsevier, 641-671.
Grima, S, Asllani, G. Spiteri, J., Daka, N. 2019. The Cost and Information Management
Effect in SMEs: An Empirical Analysis. European Research Studies Journal, 22(3),
360-369.
Gunasekaran, A., Marri, M.B., Grieve, R.J. 1999. Justification and implementation of
activity-based costing in small and medium‐sized enterprises. Logistics Information
Management, 12(5), 386-394.
Harris, I., Wang, Y., Wang, H. 2015. ICT in multimodal transport and technological trends:
Unleashing potential for the future. International Journal of Production Economics,
159, 88-103.
Havlíček, K., Thalassinos. I.E., Berezkinova, L. 2013. Innovation Management and
Controlling in SMEs. European Research Studies Journal, 16(4), 57-70, Special
Issue on SMEs.
Hicks, D. 1999.Activity-Based Costing: Making it Work for Small and Mid-Sized
Businesses. John Wiley and Sons.
Hofmann, E., Bosshard, J. 2017. Supply chain management and activity-based costing:
Current status and directions for the future. International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, 47(8), 712-735.
Hoozée, S., Ngo, Q.H. 2017. The Impact of Managers’ Participation in Costing System
Design on Their Perceived Contributions to Process Improvement. European
Accounting Review Forthcoming, 1-24.
Kocakulah, M.C, Foroughi, A., Stott, A., Manyoky, L. 2017. Activity-Based Costing:
helping Small and Medium-Sized firms achieve a competitive edge in the global
marketplace. Journal of Accounting and Marketing, 6, 245.
Kocakulah, M. 2007. ABC implementation for the small service company. Cost
Management, (March/April), 34-39.
Koch, R., Weber, W. 2008. Cost and revenue planning and control at Stuttgart airport.
Journal of Airport Management, 2(2), 120-131.
Kostovska, G., Gecevska, V., Jovanoski, D. 2006. Implementation of Activity Based Costing
(ABC) in small and medium companies. Mechanical Engineering, 25(1), 27-31.
 D. Raucci, D. Lepore

213

Lohr, M. 2012. Specificities of Managerial Accounting at SMEs: Case Studies from the
German Industrial Sector. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 25(1),
35-55.
Machado, M. 2012. Activity Based Costing Knowledge: Empirical study on small and
medium size enterprises. Revista Contemporânea de Contabilidade, 9(18), 167-186.
Maciariello, J.A., Kirby, C.J. 1994. Management control systems: using adaptive systems to
attain control. (2nd ed.), Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.
Meiryani, S. 2014. Influence user involvement on the quality of accounting information
systems. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 3(8), 118-
124.
Miller, J.G., Vollman, T.E. 1985. The Hidden Factory. Harvard Business Review, 5(37).
142-150.
Needy, K.L., Nachtmann, H., Roztocki, N., Warner, R.C., Bidanda, B. 2003. Implementing
activity-based costing systems in small manufacturing firms: A field study.
Engineering Management Journal, 15(1), 3-10.
Nurminen T., Korpunen H., Uusitalo, J. 2009. Applying the activity-based costing to cut-to-
length timber harvesting and trucking. Silva Fennica, 43(5).
Özyürek, H, Yılmaz, M. 2015. Application of Costing System in the Small and Medium
Sized Enterprises (SME) in Turkey. International Journal of Economics and
Management Engineering, 9(1), 389-397.
Pohlen, T., Londe, B. 1994. Implementing Activity-Based Costing (ABC) in logistics.
Journal of Business Logistics, 15(2), 11-12.
Popesko, B., Novák, P. 2011.Activity-Based Costing Application in an Urban Mass
Transport Company. Journal of Competitiveness, 4, 51-65.
Popesko, B, Bata, B. Kolkova, A. 2016. Profitability analysis of urban mass transport lines
using acitivity based costing methods: An evidence from the Czech Republic.
Journal of Applied Engineering Science, 14(3), 335-344.
Raab, C. and Mayer, K. 2009. Activity-based pricing: can it be applied in restaurants?
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21, 393-410.
Ragab, A.F.M., Arisha, A. 2013. Knowledge management and measurement: a critical
review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(6), 873-901.
Raucci, D., Lepore, D. 2015. The role of participation in the design of time equations in the
time-driven activity-based costing - a systematic review of the literature. Journal of
Applied Economic Sciences, 10(3), 337-352
Rìos-Manríquez, M., Munoz, C.C., Rodríguez-Vilarino, L. 2014. Is the activity-based
costing system a viable instrument for small and medium enterprises? The case of
Mexico. Estudios Gerenciales, 30, 220-232.
Rotch, W, 1990. Activity Based costing in service industries. Journal of Cost Management,
4(2), 4-14.
Roztocki, N., Valenzuela, J.F., Porter, J.D., Monk, R.M., Needy, K.L. 2004. A Procedure for
Smooth Implementation of Activity-Based Costing in Small Companies.
Engineering Management Journal, 16(4), 19-27.
Sandelin, M. 2008. Operation of management control practices as a package-A case study on
control system variety in a growth firm context. Management Accounting Research,
19(4), 324-343.
Schein, E.H. 1991. Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San
Francisco.
 A Simplified Activity-Based Costing Approach for SMEs:
The Case Study of an Italian Small Road Company
214

Schoute, M. 2004. Determinants of the adoption and use of activity-based costing. Paper
presented to the American Accounting Association Management, Accounting
Section Meeting, Miami, Florida, USA.
Stapleton, D., Pati, S.E. Beach, E., Julmanichoti, P. 2004. Activity-based Costing for
Logistics and Marketing. Business Process Management Journal, 10(5), 584-597.
Stevenson, T.H., Barnes, F.C., Stevenson, S.A. 1996. Activity-based costing: Beyond the
smoke and mirrors. Review of Business, 25-31.
Sveiby, K.E., Simons, R. 2002. Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work–
an empirical study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(5), 420-433.
Themido, I., Arantes, A., Fernandes, C., Guedes, A.P. 2000. Logistic costs case study-an
ABC approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51(10), 1148-1157.
Turney, P.B.B. 1991. How Activity-Based Costing Helps Reduce Cost. Journal of Cost
Management, Winter, 29-35.
Vercio, A., Shoemaker, B. 2007. ABCs of batch processing: Assign the batch cost to the
product that required the batch activity? Maybe not! Journal of Accountancy, 1-5.
Vieira, R., Hoskin, K. 2005. Power, Discourses and Accounting Change: The
Implementation of Activity Based Costing in a Portuguese Bank. In 28th annual,
Congress of the European Accounting Association, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Watanapa, A., Pholwatchana, S., Wiyaratn, W. 2016. Activity-Based Costing Analysis for
train station service. Engineering Journal, 20(5), 135-144.
Yin, R.K. 2013. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, California,
USA.